Remembering the Black Protests of the 1960s-70s

In my previous post on how to agitate faithfully, I noted that the only revelations we have received in the past 125 years came about as a result of agitation. With regards to polygamy, the US government agitated in such a coercive manner that we got the Manifesto in Official Declaration 1 in which Wilford Woodruff declared “I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”

With February being Black History Month, as well as a few comments declaring that we should never agitate, and that the 1978 revelation was in spite of the protests, I thought it might be a good idea to re-visit some of these protests that have been largely forgotten by many of us because they occurred 50 years ago. From the book Saints, Slaves, and Blacks by Newell Bringhurst, page 180,

By the 1960s Utah civil rights activists started to demonstrate against the Mormon church itself, in their efforts to secure favorable civil rights legislation…. The Utah legislature did repeal the state’s long-standing antimiscegenation law, but failed to enact other desired legislation. In response, the NAACP decided to organize a protest against the Mormon church leaders, whom they perceived as blocking civil rights measures in the state legislature. NAACP leaders had some cause for concern, as church leaders had failed to make known the church’s position on civil rights. The Salt Lake NAACP chapter made tentative plans to picket Temple Square during the LDS General Conference in the fall of 1963. In addition, NAACP chapters across the country announced plans to picket local Mormon mission headquarters in support of the Salt Lake chapter.12 The threatened NAACP demonstrations, however, were averted when Apostle Hugh B. Brown of the Church First Presidency released a statement outlining hte “position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter of civil rights.” This statement let it “be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.”13 The church’s 1963 pro-civil rights statement was followed by a relatively tranquil period from October 1963 until the early spring of 1965, during which time civil rights protesters did not confront the Mormon Church.14

This all changed, however, in early March, 1965, when the NAACP charged the Mormon Church with “working behind the scenes” to prevent the passage of civil rights legislation pending before the Utah state legislature.15 After the church-owned Deseret News refused to endorse pending legislation calling for fair employment and fair housing, the NAACP organized a series of three marches on the church administration building.16 In the wake of these demonstrations, the Deseret News reaffirmed the church’s 1963 pro-civil rights statement, labeling it “A Clear Civil Rights Stand.”17 The state legislature enacted both a public accomodations act and a fair employment practices act.18 Subsequently demonstrations against the church tapered off, at least temporarily.19

By the late 1960s, however, the Mormon church faced new difficulties as advocates of black rights focused their attacks on Mormon black priesthood denial itself. This direct assault on black priesthood denial reflected a general shift in the American civil rights movement of the 1960s. Civil rights activists looked beyond discriminatory practices per se. They attacked what they felt to be the roots of such discriminatory practices, namely, fundamental racist concepts or doctrines. In the case of Mormons, the target was the doctrine of black priesthood denial. In lashing out at black priesthood denial these advocates initially concentrated their fire on the church-owned Brigham Young University. Militant black and white protesters demonstrated during athletic contests between Brigham Young and other colleges and universities. In the spring of 1958, eight members of the University of Texas-El Paso track team refused to compete against Brigham Young University because of their belief that the Mormons considered “blacks…inferior and…disciples of the devil.”20 In October 1968, militant demonstrators from San Jose State College assailed Brigham Young University during a football contest between the two schools. This contest was marked by student violence and the refusal of black athletes to participate. Finally a bomb threat was made against the hotel in which the BYU team was housed. Later the same year black San Jose State basketball players refused to play against BYU.21

Anti-BYU protests similar to those at the University of Texas-El Paso and San Jose State continued throughout 1969 and into early 1970. Pickets and off-field strife greeted BYU athletes during their contests with virtually all colleges and universities in the trans-Mississippi West, including Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, Colorado State, and Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo.22 A particularly noteworthy incident involved fourteen black players of the University of Wyoming football team. When these athletes wore black arm bands “to protest Mormon racial beliefs” prior to a football game with BYU, the Wyoming coach summarily dismissed them from the team. This dismissal of the “Wyoming 14” stimulated further black protests against BYU.23 More serious for the Mormon school, however, was the refusal of Stanford University, the University of Washington, and San Jose State to participate in any further athletic contests with BYU.24 By January 1970, Sports Illustrated observed that “the protests [against BYU] have grown in intensity to the point where they have almost transcended all else.”25

Bringhurst goes on to describe opposition to a Mormon building in New York due to black protests, problems with LDS Governor George Romney’s white house bid (George is Mitt’s father), protests against the LDS Church for requiring Boy Scout senior patrol leaders to be the deacons quorum president (thereby eliminating blacks from the position, because they couldn’t be ordained to the priesthood), as well as some protests I have already documented of Byron Marchant and Douglass Wallace. They both stopped by my blog, so I encourage you to check out that post.

So, it seems that many have poor memories of the protests that precipitated the lifting of the priesthood/temple ban on black church members. Comments?

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Published by Mormon Heretic

Mormon Heretic has been blogging since January 2008 at his own blog, Mormon Heretic. In 2009 he was invited to join Mormon Matters, and joined Wheat and Tares in 2010. He is married with three kids, is active in the LDS Church, a returned missionary, and a member of the Mormon History Association and the John Whitmer Association.
View all posts by Mormon Heretic

Post navigation

32 thoughts on “Remembering the Black Protests of the 1960s-70s”

MH – Thanks for digging this up a bit. Thanks for investigating this and bringing some of these facts up. I did push back on someone on some blog comment saying, “there was no push to have the priesthood ban on blacks to be removed” and I did say they must not be as old as I was. But you have even brought up more items than I was aware. And then there is the rumor that the US Gov was allegedly contemplating removing the church’s tax exempt status. I could see where that would make the prayers about changing the policy even more fervent.

I always thought that the lucrative and productive, if dark complected, mission field of Brazil has a lot to do with it. I have no idea what part of the Brazilian saints were actually what we could call ethnically Black now but Brazil had had a tradition of racial blending with Black and aboriginal slaves almost from the time of the first White people in South America.

In fact, the announcement of the revelation at that year’s GC was only 1 month after the dedication of the São Paulo temple. If I recall correctly, it was one of only a handful of foreign temples and there probably were only a dozen or so in the US, mostly UT, at the time so it’s importance certainly seems significant to me.

Or the potentially “lucrative and productive, if dark complected” mission field of West Africa. By the mid-1970s, there were literally thousands in Nigeria, Ghana and other nearby nations who were Mormons in everything but baptism. The Church refused to send missionaries until local priesthood leadership was a possibility.

Wikipedia notes that within one year of the revelation, there were more than 1,700 members in 35 branches in West Africa.

With regard to the so-called agitation or threats, as they might be called, the possibilities in those cases that it would have affected the whole Church materially and detrimentally. I suppose the same could be said for the opposition of SSM in light of the full scale acceptance by the government that is underway. Once it is fully in place, there could a “tax exemption backlash” (and property confiscation) against Churches unless legal marriage is taken out of their hands.

It’s hard to see a similar consequence in the light of the OW movement, which is administrative rather than discriminatory. Now if we had a paid clergy, it might be another story.

Bringhurst talks briefly about the temple in the link above, and I also have an interesting post on Helvicio Martens, the first black general authority from Brazil, but I have to pull it up from a backup copy when my website crashed. I’ll try to get it up soon.

An important note to Hugh B. Brown’s reading of the civil right’s statement in General Conference is that he actually engineered that without the knowledge of much of the 12. He fought long and hard against Benson, Stapely, Peterson and many others on the council to convince McKay to release some type of statement by the church. When McKay agreed Brown took it upon himself to incorporate the statement into his talk thereby giving it more doctrinal heft than the press release it was intended to be. As Prince’s book makes clear it was a real political fight among the apostleship in how the church should respond to this question. Hugh B. Brown is the clear progressive hero who kept pushing McKay in the right direction.

The similarities notwithstanding, the key difference between past and present issues is the only attribute that really matters. Past controversies presented major obstacles to the growth of the church. Current controversies still have yet to rise to that level. Once present issues rise to this level, I would expect them to be dealt with in similar ways.

On a side note, our church pays clergy by way of stipends (General Authorities), reimbursements (Mission Presidents), and salaries (Temple Recorders). We might have fewer paid clergy than some churches, but to categorically state we have none, is false.

“Which is administrative rather than discriminatory”…that is EXACTLY what was said about the racial priesthood ban…E.X.A.C.T.L.Y.

Here is Joseph Fielding Smith as President of the 12 in 1963 Deseret News:

“The Latter-day Saints, so commonly called ‘Mormons,’ have no animosity toward the Negro. Neither have they described him as belonging to an ‘inferior race.’ ”

President Smith went on to quote a passage from the Book of Mormon that says Christ. “denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free….” Next came his major point: “the [Mormon] Church can do more for the Negro than any other Church on the face of the earth.

“What other Church can baptize them by divine authority and confirm them and give them the gift the Holy Ghost? What other Church can promise them with assurance that they can if they are faithful and true before the Lord enter into the celestial kingdom?…

“What other Church can make a better promise? Moreover, we know whereof we speak, for the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored with all its powers and divine authority.

“The Negro who accepts the doctrines of the Church and is baptized by an authorized minister of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to salvation in the celestial kingdom, or the highest heaven spoken of by Paul.

“It is true that the work of the ministry is given to other peoples, and why should the so-called Christian denominations complain? How many Negroes have been placed as ministers over white congregations in the so-called Christian denominations?”

President Smith concluded the article by saying, “it is strange that so many persons are tried and condemned by well-meaning people because of assumed notions and prejudice without a true knowledge of the facts.”

***

You can replace “women” with “Negro” in that passage and it is precisely your argument. Women get to the celestial kingdom. We aren’t prejudiced against them. Its just that they aren’t called to “administer” in the church. How many other church’s can say they have women ministers (more and more today of course, but definitely a lot don’t).

Even if you personally don’t buy the equivalence you have to admit that there is a pretty plausible reason for others to see the strong parallels. As to the consequences of excluding women from ecclesiastical roles and the governance of the church, they are all over the place if only we look. The inability to create branches, wards and stakes in many locals. Exacerbated cultural and fungible inequalities throughout the church. The almost complete absence of revelation on female divinity. A temple ceremony that still spiritually harms women and has for generations. Increasing disaffection among young women over equal treatment and status objections. Increased public scrutiny and pressure. Internal activism.

Do we really have to see people protest sporting events to make these parallels more obvious? Apparently, so.

MH – thanks for the post, but it makes it look like the protests of the 70s were just a couple of nuts (not helped by the comments). Was there really a “dying down”, with just a few nuts and rumors that “someone” was trying to take away tax exempt status?

We probably do not agree on most of what you have written. I do not see an equivalency between what was done to African-Americans and women in our society. I can see some parallel, but not true equivalency. the church and its leader have admitted that the ban on Priesthood was not well-founded on doctrine but more on common prejudice modes of its time. That doctrinal explanations were false and must be totally rejected.

That has not (at least not yet) been the case with women holding the Priesthood. the church has to this point declared that it is very firm doctrinal grounds with regard to this question.

Could it change? Sure it could. But I don’t think that the US government or any other government will intervene to force the church to change its policy on priesthood in the same way it affected the church on polygamy and African-Americans.

“A temple ceremony that still spiritually harms women and has for generations.”

This is clearly in the eyes of a very small minority of women in the church, whose victim-hood seems to extend to many corners both in and out of the church.

“Was there really a “dying down”, with just a few nuts and rumors that “someone” was trying to take away tax exempt status?”

I’d say this is a good characterization of what happened in the 1970s. The big protests at Temple Square and against BYU had largely died down. A few nuts did protest by not sustaining Kimball (or I guess Tanner if you read my blog), but the major protests had died down. June 1978 was a quiet news day when the announcement rescinding the ban came.

“the church and its leader have admitted that the ban on Priesthood was not well-founded on doctrine but more on common prejudice modes of its time. ”

Jeff, I’m sure you remember the Randy Bott episode of just a few years ago. He was a BYU prof that as of 2012 still believed that the Book of Abraham justified a ban on blacks and was “well-founded on doctrine” so I find your characterization completely amiss. As late as 1969, the First Presidency believed that the ban was made “for reasons known to God” and not based on, as you said, “common prejudice modes of its time.” This argues not only for a strong parallel, but for equivalency.

No, because without the agitation/protests of the 1960s , 1978 would have never happened. Without the agitation of the US government against polygamy, the Manifesto would have never occurred.

Even with agitation, it takes decades. US government persecution took 30 years between the first anti-polygamy legislation and the Manifesto. Black agitation took nearly 20 years with the civil rights/priesthood protests mentioned in the OP, and 1978.

Kate Kelly’s agitation, if successful, will probably take 20-30 years before Official Declaration 3 (or section 139) comes about. The question for me, is will Kate end up as a footnote like Sonya Johnson, or will she be a player like the Edmunds-Tucker Act or the NAACP/BYU protests? Time will tell.

“As late as 1969, the First Presidency believed that the ban was made “for reasons known to God” and not based on, as you said, “common prejudice modes of its time.” This argues not only for a strong parallel, but for equivalency.”

But they don’t now. Randy Bott’s stupid comments aside.

I know many like to bring up the past as some sort of scarlet letter that we should all bare. Eventually, those folks have to begin to live in the here and now and recognize the progress that has and will continue to be made. That might include gays and women in the future as well. Who knows?

I don’t see the founders of this country and the writers of the constitution being brought up in the ongoing civil rights discussions even though they themselves did not believe in equal rights for anyone other then rich, white guys.

“No, because without the agitation/protests of the 1960s , 1978 would have never happened.”

Often, you hear, “It would have happened sooner, but the saints weren’t ready for it.” Grasping at straws. I doubt the Noah’s contemporaries were ready for the flood.

rah above quotes:

Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 4, p. 169
“The Latter-day Saints, so commonly called ‘Mormons,’ have no animosity towards the Negro. Neither have they described him as belonging to an ‘inferior race.'”

My favorite quote relating to that is:

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pp. 101-102
“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race.”

#20 (Re: JSF and his opinion of blacks)…that was his opinion, not LDS DOCTRINE. Just like one of his contemporaries, Mark E. Peterson, would “allow” black people to drive a Cadillac if they could afford one (why, thank yuh, mistuh Peterson, suh, for ‘letting’ drive them Caddy-lacks ‘cuz we sho’ does loves ‘dem). The Church is for the PERFECTING of the Saints, even those at the top, and certainly YOU and I.

#19 (El Jefe)- “I don’t see the founders of this country and the writers of the constitution being brought up in the ongoing civil rights discussions even though they themselves did not believe in equal rights for anyone other then rich, white guys.” Such a late-20th century concept did not EXIST in any popular political discussion contemporary to the Founding Fathers. For that matter, supposedly Ben Franklin “warned” about letting the J-O-O-s have place in America, though evidence that he actually said that is practically non-existent, but not unlikely for him or most of his associates.

Though most of the protests were well in advance of my interest in Mormonism (I was baptized some months after the June ’78 revelation), I don’t recall that the Church was facing any particular public scrutiny or legal challenges re: blacks. If anything, things seemed fairly quiet, then, BAM! down cometh the revelation. Just shows that Heavenly Father works on HIS timetable, not OURS.

Jeff, so all that matters is what is said today. Statements in the past, even if by the First Presidency, don’t matter. We can live with the injustices of sexism today, because the racism of 1969 was fine. Then, some 50 years in the future, when we refer to Elder Oaks sexist conference talk last year in the same vein as we refer to the 1969 statement, your response will be the same in 2069.

“I know many like to bring up the past as some sort of scarlet letter that we should all bare.”

That’s not why I bring it up. I bring it up to show the equivalency that you fight so hard to deny.

“I don’t see the founders of this country and the writers of the constitution being brought up in the ongoing civil rights discussions even though they themselves did not believe in equal rights for anyone other then rich, white guys.”

I see it. I got a lot of crap for my discussion about George Washington offering alcohol for votes. I see people upset that Thomas Jefferson fathered a girl with his slave mistress Sally Hemmings. Washington hunted down escaped slaves.

“That’s not why I bring it up. I bring it up to show the equivalency that you fight so hard to deny.”

I think you bring it up as a way to bludgeon everyone who doesn’t agree with you.

“I see it. I got a lot of crap for my discussion about George Washington offering alcohol for votes. I see people upset that Thomas Jefferson fathered a girl with his slave mistress Sally Hemmings.”

You may see it, but I was referring to the general discussions of civil rights that have occurred over the last 50 years. You didn’t hear MLK discuss the founding fathers. He was focused on fixing the present, not ligating the past.

Mormon critics love to bring up the past and shove it in everyone’s face because it hurts their arguments to discuss the improvements that the Church has made over the recent past.

The church is still digging in its heels and refusing to improve to this day. They have declared that short of “agitation” they have no intention of being more inclusive, more transparent or more genuinely charitable.

Mormon apologists like to pretend the past never happened. Acknowledging the past hurts their arguments, and they view bringing up the past as “shoving it in or faces” and carrying around Scarlet letters.

It takes one to know one Jeff. Notice that it is just like yours fashioned on “Mormon critics” in 25. I’m not sure why that’s hard to notice, but you do seem to have a problem seeing equivalences, that’s for sure.

MH – read with some refreshment your comments on alcohol and voting from a blog some six years ago (back in the ’08 election which for SOME reason was a wee bit contentious for the Church, gee, I wonder why…), particularly your standing up for the ability of the Church and its members to participate in the political process. I could get pissy and quip “what happened, since?”, but since you referenced it just now, I’ll go on the assumption that your views haven’t changed.

There’s nothing wrong for pointing out that GW did some things back in the day that were at worst a bit ‘naughty’ but not in the context of the times any great scandal. To me, telling the TRUTH, warts and all, does NOT diminish a man’s greatness. Does Babe Ruth’s drunkenness and chronic carousing affect his status as the greatest ballplayer of all time? No, it just shows that even an overly-indulged overgrown adolescent can achieve greatness, so what’s YOUR excuse? (Or mine?) Or did Ty Cobb’s meanness and downright bigotry (he was thought one in HIS day, by many fellow GEORGIANS and ballplayers, which IMO says something…) take away his superhuman abilities to hit and steal bases? This is why I’m uncomfortable with the hymn “Praise to the Man”, b/c likely the JS that I’ve been acquainted with in 35+ years of Church membership would instead want all praise directed to the Savior that he served. But if indeed ‘brother Joseph’ was at times a great legend in his own mind, what of it? He had his trials, as you have yours, and I have mine. You mean the Lord picks fallible MEN to serve Him? Oh, perish the thought!

In the same manner I don’t see a problem with chortling at some of the attitudes and statements of brethren re: blacks in the past, as long as we remember the context of their times. I give Mark E. Peterson a hard time for his ‘letting’ black people drive Cadillacs, yet in no way do I say that the man had a mean spirit or harbored ill will towards black people. His attitudes seemed to be embarrassingly ‘quaint’, but I take solace that nowadays Church leaders wouldn’t talk like that, at least not publicly. There’s nothing wrong with admitted that not only were LDS folk in general but the high leadership in particular influenced by the cultural norms of their times and with their respective peers. It just shows what the Lord can get done with we flawed ‘hew-mons’.

And likewise I don’t feel that the Church has any ‘splainin’ to do with regard to the PH ban on blacks. You either accept that the Church was being guided by current revelation via fallible men serving as prophets, seers, and revelators (with all attendant failings including various degrees of prejudices), or you don’t. If I was in charge at the time I’d have had the ban lifted NLT than 1948, if EVER instituted; but I wasn’t even born then and even since then the Savior NEVER rent the Heavens and asked yours truly for guidance. Somehow HE has managed his Church w/o input from yours truly. Oh, perish the thought…